https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28794
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
> Thanks for identifying the problem. Please don't rename the argument to
> 'op_mask' though: the parameter itself is not a mask, it's an eight-bit
> control
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||110293
--- Comment #9 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109959
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110928
Bug ID: 110928
Summary: ICE with -fanalyzer on -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds
checker
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #5)
> I'm working on a patch.
int
-vpternlog_redundant_operand_mask (rtx *operands)
+vpternlog_redundant_operand_mask (rtx op_mask)
{
int mask = 0;
- int imm8 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
I'm working on a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110927
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) from comment #6)
> MSVC also added, clang seems have optimization issue, but MSVC doesn't have
> that
No, I think what clang does is correct,
f(int, int):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55699
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55699=edit
reduced.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110927
Bug ID: 110927
Summary: GCC fails to parse dependent type in concept through
partial specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55698
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55698=edit
reduced.i
Reduced version attached, not cleaned it up yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
--- Comment #6 from 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) ---
MSVC also added, clang seems have optimization issue, but MSVC doesn't have
that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 55697
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55697=edit
matmul_i1.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Target
/lib/ -isystem /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include -fchecking=1 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-14.0.0_pre20230806/work/gcc-14-202308
06/libgfortran
-iquote/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-14.0.0_pre20230806/work/gcc-14-20230806
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105504
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109959
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> +FAIL: c-c++-common/Wrestrict.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
This is just like the builtin-sprintf-warn-23.c xfail; well except
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
Maybe source code can be changed as
int f(int a, int b)
{
#ifdef __BMI__
return _tzcnt_u32 (a);
#else
return _bit_scan_forward (a);
#endif
}
But looks like clang/MSVC doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #3)
> But there's difference between TZCNT and BSF
>
> The key difference between TZCNT and BSF instruction is that TZCNT provides
> operand size as output when source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611
--- Comment #10 from Jiang An ---
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3967
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110924
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed, though this is undefined code unless a is always 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110924
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a testcase without calling main:
```
int a[1], b, c, d, e, f, g;
[[gnu::noinline]]
void h(int i, int j) {
int *k = 0;
if (*k)
h(0, 0);
g = i && d;
}
int jj() {
if (c)
goto l;
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110924
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109959
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
+FAIL: c-c++-common/Wrestrict.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wrestrict.c:684:3:
warning: 'strcpy' accessing 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110925
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janschultke at googlemail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110925
Bug ID: 110925
Summary: Unnecessary dynamic initialization in trivial cases
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107962
--- Comment #2 from Hubert Tong ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#2264 suggests that
the GCC behaviour may be the desired one because copies of
partially-initialized structures are allowed in C but cause undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110924
Bug ID: 110924
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O{s,2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu:
verify_ssa failed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110792
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:529909f9e92dd3b0ed0383f45a44d2b5f8a58958
commit r14-3012-g529909f9e92dd3b0ed0383f45a44d2b5f8a58958
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104296
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||110262
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110917
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110923
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc c,c++ ftbfs on ppc64le |[14 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110923
Bug ID: 110923
Summary: gcc c,c++ ftbfs on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109959
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55696
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55696=edit
Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80786
Giulio Benetti changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giulio.benetti@benettiengin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110727
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110857
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109959
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108760
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Testcase:
#include "x86intrin.h"
int f(int a, int b)
{
return _tzcnt_u32 (a);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110922
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think you need the following 3 patterns, there might be more though:
(simplify
(bit_and:c
(bit_and:c
(eq:c @0 @1)
(eq:c @0 @2)
)
(ne:c @1 @2)
)
( { falsevalue; } )
)
(simplify
(bit_and:c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110922
Bug ID: 110922
Summary: `(a == b) & (a == c) & (b != c)` is not optimized to
false
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110918
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110921
Bug ID: 110921
Summary: Relax _tzcnt_u32 support x86, all x86 arch support for
this instrunction
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110920
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109021
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
*** Bug 110920 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110920
Bug ID: 110920
Summary: variably-length array declarations as parameters for C
compatibility
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
.LFE4:
.size main, .-main
.local e
.comm e,4,4
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 14.0.0 20230806 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
-- END OUTPUT -
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110919
Bug ID: 110919
Summary: [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at
-O3 since r14-1691-gbc5a2c2e793
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110918
Bug ID: 110918
Summary: [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at
-O3 since r14-2331-g018e7f16408
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110884
--- Comment #5 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> PTRDIFF_MAX is required to be less than SIZE_MAX and is the max size of an
> array because otherwise a-b would be undefined ...
That is true for glibc, but it's
60 matches
Mail list logo
